Libertarian Party of North Carolina Growing Fast
Dave Allen Walker
=======================================
News From
The Libertarian Party of North Carolina
Dave Walker - Press Secretary
1-800-292-3766
me...@lpnc.org
8/22/97
=======================================
Libertarian Party Growing Fast
While the Democrats and Republicans in North Carolina are seeing
slowdowns
in registration, membership losses and hundreds of thousands of dollars
in
debt, the Libertarian Party of North Carolina is growing faster than
ever.
"Finding more Libertarians is as easy as drawing a breath," said Sean
Haugh, Chair of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina, adding, "A lot
of
people are beginning to realize that they can do something to take back
their government."
The Libertarian Party of North Carolina undertook a tremendous effort to
regain ballot access in North Carolina, a task that was completed in
July.
Ballot Access for the Libertarian Party of North Carolina requires
massive
manpower, time and money. Ballot access allows the LPNC to run
candidates
in every partisan election through the year 2000.
In the first six months of 1997, instead of seeing reductions in
membership or fewer registrations, the LPNC increased both. They've
seen
a 20% increase in voter registrations, and new county organizations are
popping up all over the state.
"There are six county organization meetings in August alone," Sean Haugh
stated. "We have nowhere to go but up."
Many new members are disaffected former members of the Democratic and
Republican parties who realized that both of those parties are
increasing
spending, creating more failing government programs and taking away more
and more individual rights in the name of protection.
Libertarians favor individual choice, personal responsibility, and
freedom
from government on all issues. Their platform calls for abolishing the
income tax, deep cuts in government spending, and an end to the War on
Drugs, among other issues. "So many people are joining the Libertarian
Party," said Haugh, "because they want to get their lives back and their
taxes back."
With this phenomenal growth momentum, the LPNC is working hard to
increase
its growth still further. It is very likely that voter registration and
membership could double this year. There's no doubt that the
Libertarian
Party of North Carolina is a rising force in North Carolina politics.
# # #
Mike Phillips
Dave Allen Walker wrote:
>
> =======================================
> News From
> The Libertarian Party of North Carolina
> Dave Walker - Press Secretary
> 1-800-292-3766
> me...@lpnc.org
> 8/22/97
> =======================================
>
> Libertarian Party Growing Fast
[deletia]
> "Finding more Libertarians is as easy as drawing a breath," said Sean
> Haugh, Chair of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina, adding, "A lot of
> people are beginning to realize that they can do something to take back
> their government."
If the above statement is correct, then the Libertarian Party will be a
force with which to be reckoned as early as the 1998 election. Drawing a
breath is very easy for most of us.
> The Libertarian Party of North Carolina undertook a tremendous effort to
> regain ballot access in North Carolina, a task that was completed in July.
> Ballot Access for the Libertarian Party of North Carolina requires massive
> manpower, time and money. Ballot access allows the LPNC to run candidates
> in every partisan election through the year 2000.
It's as easy as breathing.
> "There are six county organization meetings in August alone," Sean Haugh
> stated. "We have nowhere to go but up."
...a statement which normally defines the bottom.
> Many new members are disaffected former members of the Democratic and
> Republican parties who realized that both of those parties are increasing
> spending, creating more failing government programs and taking away more
> and more individual rights in the name of protection.
Great rhetoric, but provide is with the details so that we may make our
own judgments.
> Libertarians favor individual choice, personal responsibility, and
> freedom from government on all issues. Their platform calls for abolishing
> the income tax, deep cuts in government spending, and an end to the War on
> Drugs, among other issues. "So many people are joining the Libertarian
> Party," said Haugh, "because they want to get their lives back and their
> taxes back."
What are the specifics of the Libertarian platform that will get our
taxes back? I'm interested.
> With this phenomenal growth momentum, the LPNC is working hard to increase
> its growth still further. It is very likely that voter registration and
> membership could double this year. There's no doubt that the Libertarian
> Party of North Carolina is a rising force in North Carolina politics.
Well, gosh, why not? It's as easy as breathing!
FWIW, if the Libertarian party wants credibility among some of us who
are not followers or disciples, it will have to get off of the
legalization
of drugs position. If the party is truly concerned for the welfare of
the
state, once it is clear that it will not have a place on the ballot in a
given election, it would throw its support behind the next best thing,
or
lesser of two evils, the Republican Party.
I'm all four a viable three-party system, if that's what the electorate
wants, but I'm not in favor of another Clintonesque "Drugs Are My
Friend"
party that pumps more hot air than substance into the media. We're on
overload now.
James P. Meyer
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Dave Allen Walker wrote:
> Libertarians favor individual choice, personal responsibility, and
> freedom
> from government on all issues. Their platform calls for abolishing the
> income tax, deep cuts in government spending, and an end to the War on
> Drugs, among other issues. "So many people are joining the Libertarian
> Party," said Haugh, "because they want to get their lives back and their
> taxes back."
So I guess that means that after we're all LoonyTunearians, that
each property owner is responsible for the upkeep of the stretch of
highway immediately in front of his house and is free to either shoot drug
dealers who set up shop there or take a cut of the the dealer's profit as
he or she sees fit.
Jim
James P. Meyer
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Thomas Disque wrote:
> We didn't have a federal income tax until early this century. Why
> do you think society will collapse without it?
I was mainly responding to the "freedom from government in all
areas" plank in their platform.
With regards to taxes, the government needs money to finance
projects that only the government can accomplish. How would you have the
government make the money, with a bake sale?
Jim
chris losinger
the old fashioned way: conquer other countries and take their
gold!
-c
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
c h r i s l o s i n g e r
chr...@pagesz.net http://www.pagesz.net/~chrisdl
Win 95 freeware | VC++ code | Record reviews | Music | Poems | More
Billy's first word was "recoiled".
ReplyTo address has been corrupted to deter unwanted e-mail.
Use the address above.
Thomas Disque
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970822...@godzilla1.acpub.duke.edu>, "James P. Meyer" <jim...@acpub.duke.edu> writes:
|> On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Thomas Disque wrote:
|>
|> > We didn't have a federal income tax until early this century. Why
|> > do you think society will collapse without it?
|>
|> I was mainly responding to the "freedom from government in all
|> areas" plank in their platform.
|>
|> With regards to taxes, the government needs money to finance
|> projects that only the government can accomplish. How would you have the
|> government make the money, with a bake sale?
Is that what they did to raise money before the imposition of income
taxes, have bake sales? Funny, I don't remember that from history
class.
|>
|> Jim
|>
|>
Tom Disque
"My opinions, not SAS Institute's"
James P. Meyer
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Seth Fehrs wrote:
> In a housing development you might choose to own the road
> in front of you, but most developments that do own the road
> agree to common upkeep (mine works this way).
"Common upkeep". That sounds just like what we have now! So
what you LoonyTunearians are suggesting is to substitute one government
for another. Leaving things just the way they are. Where's the sense in
that?
Jim
Steve Crisp
Seth Fehrs wrote:
> Last time I checked, a voluntary association wasn't a government.
> Are you dense?
Uh, excuse me Seth, but a democracy or a republic *is* a voluntary
association. We established the United States by common association and
agreement on the Constitution which has periodically been amended by the
same voluntary process. And as such, the Constitution is a voluntary
contract to which the parties of that contract are bound.
Steve Crisp
James P. Meyer
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Seth Fehrs wrote:
> James P. Meyer wrote:
>
> > > In a housing development you might choose to own the road
> > > in front of you, but most developments that do own the road
> > > agree to common upkeep (mine works this way).
> >
> > "Common upkeep". That sounds just like what we have now!
>
> It's called an *agreement*. Are you dense?
No. But then I'm not high on all those "free" drugs that the
LoonyTunearians advocate either.
Jim
James P. Meyer
Excellent bit of logic there Steve. But I'm afraid it's wasted
on Seth. He's only got one thing to promote with his LoonyTunearian
party, and that's free drugs for everybody.
He might get a few folks to agree with him, but they'll be so
smoked up that they'll never be able to find the polling place to cast
their votes. We don't have anything to worry about.
Jim
James P. Meyer
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Seth Fehrs wrote:
> I can tell you like to take pot shots but have never actually
> looked into this.
Looked into what? Your whole LoonyTunearian party is just a
front for the idiots who advocate free drugs. I can see that even
through your smoke screen. Get it? Smoke screen?
Jim
James P. Meyer
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Seth Fehrs wrote:
> > How would you have the
> > government make the money, with a bake sale?
>
> When government is absolutely necessary, user fees. Tariffs
> have some good reasons, but they have to remain small.
And if the Japs attack again, who do you consider the "users" to
be? Who's going to get the bill for maintaining the army? Or will the
army be "privatized" and live on whatever they can "liberate" from the
"enemy". Who's going to be the enemy in times of peace?
Jim
Jim Ray
> In the same vein of defense, defending property rights in
> general is a valid function of governemnt, but again they
> don't need to be a monopoly. The current pollution problems
> in our rivers might be a lot less if property owners had
> could make claims for damage that was caused upstream. As
> it is, government regulations stop the worst polluters but
> in effect grant permission to everyone within the law but
> still polluting.
How come the hogs are number one in our fine state (right along with
the pollution from hog waste) yet education is at the bottom?
--
Regards,
Jim Ray j...@WhirledPeas.com http://www.WhirledPeas.com
207 Dennis Ave Raleigh NC 27604-2136
tel: 919-828-7864 fax: 919-828-3669 pager: 919-857-7414
Jim Ray
> xcise taxation limited the revenue stream available to, and thus the
> power of, the federal government; that is the precise reason the
> Constitution specifies only a few kinds of taxation as sources of
> federal revenue. The income tax destroyed that limitation and enabled
> this century's explosion of federal size, power and activity.
Meanwhile, educators hold bake sales and government extorts money from
the citizens to feed their pork.
Jim Ray
> And if the Japs attack again, who do you consider the "users"
> to
> be? Who's going to get the bill for maintaining the army? Or will
> the
> army be "privatized" and live on whatever they can "liberate" from the
>
> "enemy". Who's going to be the enemy in times of peace?
There's a big difference between national defense and spending
countless dollars on troups on foreign soil.
Stephen W. Anderson
Jim Laux wrote:
> The fear couched in your tone is rather plain.
Being especially interested at the moment in learning more about the
range of current American political views I was curious about Mr.
Meyer's ground of argument when I saw his first recent post.
Unfortunately the rapidfire series of subsequent ones has left no doubt
that he is not serious. He has presented no argument at all, and in the
intellectual void where one should be there are only sophomoric
misrepresentations of Mr. Fehr's and the Libertarians' positions and
schoolboy name calling. His remarks fail to measure up even to the low
level of the common net straw man. I have seen no fear in his comments;
I merely have seen nothing whatsoever in them. I do not understand why
someone with nothing to say should be considered worth talking to.
--
Stephen Worley Anderson in Rocky Mount, North Carolina
(To e-mail, alter the header address by deleting "erasethis.")
Jim Ray
> > Libertarians favor individual choice, personal responsibility, and
>
> that
> each property owner is responsible for the upkeep of the stretch of
> highway immediately in front of his house
What is an excise tax? Doesn't user fee ring a bell?
> and is free to either shoot drug
> dealers who set up shop there or take a cut of the the dealer's profit
> as
> he or she sees fit.
No, taking a cut of the drug dealer's profit is income tax that
Libertarians do *not* want. Libertarians also do not want the
government subsidizing that pot smoking experiment/medical research at
Duke University with the tax payer's money.--
James P. Meyer
On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, Jim Ray wrote:
> There's a big difference between national defense and spending
> countless dollars on troups on foreign soil.
That's just an opinion. What about the old saying, "The best
defense is a good offense."
I'd rather have a presense in a foreign country where I could
find trouble and "nip it in the bud" than to sit here and have somebody
strike the first blow.
The world is so small now days that we can't afford to follow the
isolationist policies that allowed WWI and WWII to become world wars in
the first place.
Even Seth sees the need for policemen at home. Our military is
in foreign countries at the request of those countries and with the
majority consent of our allies. You can't get more libertarian than that!
Jim
Jim Ray
> No. But then I'm not high on all those "free" drugs that the
> LoonyTunearians advocate either.
Uh, no. Free drugs don't have *anything* to do with Libertarians.
Unclogging the prisons currently filled with victimless crime committers
and redirecting law enforcement to serve and protect instead of extort
and deploy is more in tune.
Jim Ray
> > I can tell you like to take pot shots but have never actually
> > looked into this.
>
> Looked into what? Your whole LoonyTunearian party is just a
> front for the idiots who advocate free drugs. I can see that even
> through your smoke screen. Get it? Smoke screen?
Uh, I think it was the president that "didn't inhale."
So, you want your tax dollars spent on the medical research to the tune
of $30,000 per participant whereby people sit around and smoke pot to
determine the effects? I don't.
James P. Meyer
On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, Jim Ray wrote:
> How come the hogs are number one in our fine state (right along with
> the pollution from hog waste) yet education is at the bottom?
It doesn't take being a LoonyTunearian to get involved with
education. Take an hour or two to find out about charter schools. I
think they're the finest example of what can be done with good old
private enterprise and it didn't take abolition of income taxes or free
drugs to establish them.
Jim
Jim Ray
> What?!? Are you kidding me? Even if drugs are completely legalized and
>
> become the hight of fashion among all social strata, there will still
> be
> a legion of people who shun society completely. For that percentage,
> there will always exist an underground economy that is violent.
Not my friends. My friends have the mental ability to know how to spend
their time wisely. I don't hang around with your hight of fashion
social strata. I gladly have my two cups of coffee in the morning and
usually partake in a 5 PM beer. Even if I could walk down to the local
drug store and buy a bag of herion, I doubt I would change my stance on
drugs. We're talking about individuals having choice, not drug
advocacy. Drugs can be very ugly.
> And what of those who do their legal drugs and get so strung out that
> they can no longer work to support what is not longer a recreational
> activity? Their only options left to get drugs are burglary, theft and
>
> prostitution.
Ah, burglary and theft are not victimless crimes. The tax dollars
raised from legalization would more than pay for the health care of the
poor unfortunate souls that have taken the wrong road to addiction.
> But your argument is inherently wrong anyway. Violence stemming from
> an
> actual drug deal is but the tip of the iceburg when it comes to
> violence
> related to drugs.
Violence is wrong regardless of what is legal.
> and if you don't think that is so, just go to any bar
> where alcohol is available a mere feet away from the inummerable
> fights
> that break out every night.
Well, I don't go to places where violence occurs.
Dave Allen Walker
Jim Ray <j...@WhirledPeas.com> wrote:
> How come the hogs are number one in our fine state (right along with
>the pollution from hog waste) yet education is at the bottom?
Because North Carolina's environmental laws allow it.
It is MUCH cheaper to risk a waste spill, and pay the fine should that
occur, than to have to actually pay for the cleanup yourself. North
Carolina may fine a hog farm a couple hundred thousand dollars, but the
millions it costs to clean the spill up will be paid by the taxpayer.
Think about this. it makes good business sense to locate a hog farm in
North Carolina. Our government protects them from the responsibilities
that their actions require.
Of course, hog farms are just the scapegoats for water quality problems.
If you ever do any research on munincipal waste systems, you might not
worry so much about the hogs. As usual, the worst polluter is the
government.
Dave Allen Walker
Jim Ray <j...@WhirledPeas.com> wrote:
> The government should have a bake sale to finance their pork war on
>drugs and internal revenue service. Education is more important than
>financing the law officers that go after druggies instead of violent
>folks and the jails that house victimless *crime* commiters. While I in
>no way advocate the use of intoxicating and illegal substances, I feel
>very strongly about my tax dollars being spent on government pork.
I agree that education is more important than financing the drug war and
police action against those whose actions have harmed no one but
themselves.
Of course, I believe education is so important that I do not want my child
to attend public schools in North Carolina. Government schools are no
place for intelligent children, and I owe my child the best education I
can give him. That means making sacrifices, so we can afford private
school, or homeschooling.
If only half my money wasn't being taken by the government, I wouldn't
have to sacrifice so much.
Dave Allen Walker
>I was wondering how long it would take for this thread to
>deteriorate into ad hominem attacks. Too bad, I thought it
>was taking on an air of intellect.
Actually, the ad hominem attacks started with the original responses to
the press release. Seth only asks him if he is dense because his
statements warrant the question.
Personally, I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt. Either he's dense
or purposefully twisting things to serve his own purposes. Giving the
benefit, I'd rather not think he's dense.
Jim Ray
> Of course, hog farms are just the scapegoats for water quality
> problems.
> If you ever do any research on munincipal waste systems, you might not
>
> worry so much about the hogs. As usual, the worst polluter is the
> government.
You mean, like, uh, Garner? Didn't they have a little mishap recently?
James P. Meyer
On 23 Aug 1997, Dave Allen Walker wrote:
> If YOU want to do drugs, that's no concern of mine, as long as
> your use of drugs is responsible and does not harm another.
Name *one* responsible drug user.
I'll make it easy on you. Name one *semi*responsible drug user.
What do the LoonyTunearians propose to do for all the poor
schmucks who've burned out their responsible brains on drugs and aren't
able to take care of themselves?
Jim
James P. Meyer
On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, Brian C. Burke wrote:
> > And what of those who do their legal drugs and get so strung out that
> > they can no longer work to support what is not longer a recreational
> > activity? Their only options left to get drugs are burglary, theft and
> > prostitution.
>
> Darwin nailed this one a long time ago. Its called
> Natural Selection.
In other words, you expect that the burned out druggies will
eventually make up 100 percent of the population and there'll be nobody
left who gives a damn.
Jim
Brian C. Burke
No. In other words, people who are so smart such as yourself can choose
to avoid these people.
This topic reminds me of a philosopy of religion class I took. My
instructor would claim that the reason God allows evil in the world is
so
that we can make our own CHOICE. If there was no evil, then there would
be
no choice. Get my point?
Our government is FORCING people to do the right thing. Wouldn't be
better
if we could allow people to CHOOSE to do the right thing?
Without CHOICE, there is no morality.
Brian B.
bcb...@mindspring.com
Ed Beroset
James P. Meyer wrote:
> What do the LoonyTunearians propose to do for all the poor
> schmucks who've burned out their responsible brains on drugs and aren't
> able to take care of themselves?
Register 'em.
Ed
James P. Meyer
On 24 Aug 1997, jasher wrote:
> : Name *one* responsible drug user.
>
> Me. I drink Scotch from time to time. And I have been known to smoke
> cigarettes as well. Oh, my! I guess this means I'll be popping out spawn
> and be on welfare before you know it...
The drug user in question would be using drugs presently illegal
and soon to be legal as soon as the LoonyTunearians get elected.
As far as booze and cigarettes goes, I'm sure you're aware of
fetal alcohol syndrome and the effects of second hand smoke. How
responsible is it for a parent to risk their children's health like
that? How responsible is it for you to risk your own health? What
happens to the kids if you die early?
I'll ask the question again. Can you name one responsible drug
user?
Jim
James P. Meyer
On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, Brian C. Burke wrote:
> This topic reminds me of a philosopy of religion class I took. My
> instructor would claim that the reason God allows evil in the world is
> so
> that we can make our own CHOICE. If there was no evil, then there would
> be
> no choice. Get my point?
Point? Your instructor was an idiot? Is that the point you're
making?
> Our government is FORCING people to do the right thing. Wouldn't be
> better
> if we could allow people to CHOOSE to do the right thing?
>
> Without CHOICE, there is no morality.
Without stupidity, there is no inteligence. Thanks for making me
look good.
Jim
Jim Ray
Mike Phillips wrote:
> James P. Meyer wrote:
> >
> > Name *one* responsible drug user.
>
> Clinton has a lot of responsibility.
Yeah, he never inhaled, though.
Jim Ray
> > Darwin nailed this one a long time ago. Its called
> > Natural Selection.
>
> In other words, you expect that the burned out druggies will
> eventually make up 100 percent of the population and there'll be
> nobody
> left who gives a damn.
No, no, no. Natural selection will allow the most fit to survive.
Druggies that can't control their habits will die.
Jim Ray
> > If YOU want to do drugs, that's no concern of mine, as long as
> > your use of drugs is responsible and does not harm another.
>
>
> user.
>
> schmucks who've burned out their responsible brains on drugs and
> aren't
> able to take care of themselves?
Jim, you're missing the point. Government should not tell the citizens
how to live their lives as long as citizens don't harm other citizens.
I am a responsible drug user. I proudly drink 2 cups of coffee each
morning, puff on an occassional cigar and drink beer.
While I respect your anti-drug position, I also respect my feelings to
not spend the taxpayer's money on the war against drugs, prisons to hold
offenders, the president's Millenium party or a bunch of pot heads
smoking in the name of government research.
Jim Ray
> Our government is FORCING people to do the right thing. Wouldn't be
> better
> if we could allow people to CHOOSE to do the right thing?
>
> Without CHOICE, there is no morality.
...and it goes beyond force. Countless tax dollars are wasted in the
process. I, for one, could use the money in my back pocket if it is not
put to good use!
Andy Simmons
In article <33FF1F...@pageplanet.com>,
Steve Crisp <cr...@pageplanet.com> wrote:
>
>And what of those who do their legal drugs and get so strung out that
>they can no longer work to support what is not longer a recreational
>activity? Their only options left to get drugs are burglary, theft and
>prostitution.
Steve, these people already exist. They always *will* exist. People who
want to take drugs WILL take drugs, whether it's legal or not. We will
NEVER, no matter HOW much we spend on drug enforcement, see a drug-free
country.
The legalization question, from the libertarian view, becomes this: do
you want to jail the violent drug ABUSErs that you've described? Or do
you want to jail them AND the nonviolent, responsible drug USErs?
>But your argument is inherently wrong anyway. Violence stemming from an
>actual drug deal is but the tip of the iceburg when it comes to violence
>related to drugs. and if you don't think that is so, just go to any bar
>where alcohol is available a mere feet away from the inummerable fights
>that break out every night.
Apples and oranges, largely. Alcohol, as a depressant, can often provoke
fights. Marijuana (as I suspect you're well aware) makes the user more
docile. Have you *ever* heard of a person getting extremely high and
attacking anything other than a bag of Fritos?
--Didymos!
--
=========D. Andrew "Didymos" Simmons========dasi...@unity.ncsu.edu==========
"This is my favorite quote of the day. I'm having it bronzed and riveted to
my forehead." --Gurk, Prophet of Smerp
=================G==O==O==D==B==O==Y==G==O==N==E==B==A==D====================
Christopher D Dukes
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970823...@godzilla1.acpub.duke.edu>,
James P. Meyer <jim...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>On 24 Aug 1997, jasher wrote:
>
>> : Name *one* responsible drug user.
>>
>> Me. I drink Scotch from time to time. And I have been known to smoke
>> cigarettes as well. Oh, my! I guess this means I'll be popping out spawn
>> and be on welfare before you know it...
>
> The drug user in question would be using drugs presently illegal
>and soon to be legal as soon as the LoonyTunearians get elected.
Hi,
do you remember this idiot named Joe McCarthy?
Do you realize that you are acting like him?
No I didn't think so.
--
The following must be destroyed. Microsoft, Lyons Partnership, CyberPromo.
Balkanize USENET! Vote from the rooftops!! The best thing in RTP is now SMOG!
Sending unsolicited commercial massmail to this account may result
in a network outage for your site. Have a nice day.
MusicMax DJ Services
=
=> Legalization will merely take the violent faction out of drug deals and
=> raise tax dollars to treat the poor souls that have taken the wrong road
=> to addiction.
=
=What?!? Are you kidding me? Even if drugs are completely legalized and
=become the hight of fashion among all social strata, there will still be
=a legion of people who shun society completely. For that percentage,
=there will always exist an underground economy that is violent.
Please cite some examples of this behavior as it relates to alcohol. In other
words, when's the last time you saw a story on someone getting shot over a
bottle of MD20/20?
Thought so.
=And what of those who do their legal drugs and get so strung out that
=they can no longer work to support what is not longer a recreational
=activity? Their only options left to get drugs are burglary, theft and
=prostitution.
You're describing the situation as it exists today.
=But your argument is inherently wrong anyway. Violence stemming from an
=actual drug deal is but the tip of the iceburg when it comes to violence
=related to drugs. and if you don't think that is so, just go to any bar
=where alcohol is available a mere feet away from the inummerable fights
=that break out every night.
"Violent pothead" is an oxymoron.
==============================================================
MusicMax DJ Services, Charlotte NC The Finest Sounds Around
Weddings, Company & Private Parties All Other Events Too
To send email remove "NOSPAM" from musi...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com
Please check out our webpage http://www.perigee.net/~musicmax/
==============================================================
MusicMax DJ Services
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970823...@godzilla3.acpub.duke.edu>,=On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, Jim Ray wrote:
=
=> There's a big difference between national defense and spending
=> countless dollars on troups on foreign soil.
=
= That's just an opinion.
No it isn't. The Constitution permits Congress to provide a common defense for
The United States...not for any other country. "Forward deployment" is
unconstitutional. Of course you're free to lobby your congressional
representatives to draft an Amendment permitting it...
=What about the old saying, "The best
=defense is a good offense."
Umm...that's an old saying, not Constitutional law. A wee bit different, don't
you think?
= I'd rather have a presense in a foreign country
So I guess you would have no problem with OTHER countries having a presence in
OURS, either? Or do you consider yourself the Center Of The Universe (TM) to
which all others must bow in subservience?
=where I could
=find trouble and "nip it in the bud"
Like we did with the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombers? Boy THAT
was real effective.
= The world is so small now days that we can't afford to follow the
=isolationist policies that allowed WWI and WWII to become world wars in
=the first place.
We had no business getting into the first European war, and we were actually
negotiating with Japan (hardly an "isolationist" policy) when their planes
left for Pearl Harbor.
= Even Seth sees the need for policemen at home. Our military is
=in foreign countries at the request of those countries and with the
=majority consent of our allies. You can't get more libertarian than that!
Ummm...who's PAYING for it?
Christopher D Dukes
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970823...@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu>,
>
>> your use of drugs is responsible and does not harm another.
>
Hrm, that would be me.
I like my caffeine
and I like the occasional cigar or a nice bowlful of English tobacco.
>
> I'll make it easy on you. Name one *semi*responsible drug user.
Gee that would be almost everyone in my department that likes
their caffeine, tobacco, or alcohol.
Andy Simmons
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970823...@godzilla3.acpub.duke.edu>,
>defense is a good offense."
I believe you just made that one up, brainiac. The "old saying" in
question happens to be a quote from Vince Lombardi: "the best offense is a
good defense".
In other words... our troops would do us more good in our country than
they would policing starving third-world nations.
--Didymos!
--
KMFDMTHEYMIGHTBEGIANTSPIGMELVINSTHECULTSOUNDGARDENAUTECHREMEATPUPPETS
Andy Simmons: A Disturbed Mind For Disturbing Times
d a s i m m o n @ u n i t y . n c s u . e d u
TOOLREPLICANTSRESIDENTSPAVEMENTCHEMLABORBITALPINKFLOYDCOILWHITEZOMBIE
Steve Crisp
jasher wrote:
> Steve, an association that relies upon the three-quarters assent of its
> members to allow one member to leave is NOT a voluntary association.
It is when that was an initial predicate of the voluntary association.
Steve Crisp
Steve Crisp
MusicMax DJ Services wrote:
> Please cite some examples of this behavior as it relates to alcohol. In other
> words, when's the last time you saw a story on someone getting shot over a
> bottle of MD20/20?
That's gotta be a troll, cause no one is that stupid.
Steve Crisp
Steve Crisp
Andy Simmons wrote:
> Apples and oranges, largely. Alcohol, as a depressant, can often provoke
> fights. Marijuana (as I suspect you're well aware) makes the user more
> docile. Have you *ever* heard of a person getting extremely high and
> attacking anything other than a bag of Fritos?
Yes.
Steve Crisp
Dave Allen Walker
Steve Crisp <cr...@pageplanet.com> wrote:
>But your argument is inherently wrong anyway. Violence stemming from an
The Justice Department of the United States produced a study on violence
and drugs that determined that there was no connection between illicit
drugs and violent crime. The only drug that could be directly linked to
violent crime was alcohol. PCP was considered to be inconclusive, but
evidence pointed to no violent tendencies in those who did not already
have a predisposition for violence, while those who had this
predisposition showed increases in violent behaviour. In other words, the
closest PCP got was enhancing an already violent personality.
The study stated that violent crime related to drugs was almost
exclusively related to the illegal trade, turf wars and gangs that came
about because of the illegality of these drugs.
As you point out, alcohol is a problem. That's what they found too.
It's amazing that the government can't run an objective study that
supports their position on this issue. The only way they can get their
findings to go their way is to cook the results.
Sad.
Ed Beroset
Dave Allen Walker wrote:
>
> >> Government schools are no place for intelligent children,
> >Which public school did you attend, old bean?
>
> I attended school in Lee County. High school was Lee County Senior High,
> which was selected as a school of excellence during my attendance.
[...]
> My entire school career, however, was colored by poor choices made by
> administrators in early grades.
Obviously they admitted their mistake. Public schools admit even the
most arrogant of kids.
> Quite frankly, they had no clue how to handle children as bright as I was.
I'd sure that very few schools are equipped to handle children like you.
> (I've since met a few people obviously smarter than I.
Was it their sloping foreheads that made it obvious?
> I'd rather send my son to private school. If they fail to meet his needs,
> I can take him out, along with the money I pay. Greed is a great
> motivator. Threaten the income of the teachers, administrators and
> school, and they'll do what it takes to teach your child properly.
I'm sure this will be an easy question for a bright guy like you.
What's the likelyhood that a person who is highly motivated by money is
going to take a job as an elementary school teacher in a state which
ranks 42nd of 50 states in teacher pay?
> I attended a great school, for a public school. If my parents had been
> able to afford a few hundred dollars each year, I could have attended a
> much better private school, which was miles closer to my home.
At the risk of blowing out that magnificent cerebellum of yours,
consider what effect it would have had on that county's public school
funding if your parents and their peers and neighbors had each been able
to afford a few hundred dollars each year.
Ed
MusicMax DJ Services
In article <33FFE2...@pageplanet.com>,
Steve Crisp <cr...@pageplanet.com> wrote:
=MusicMax DJ Services wrote:
=
=> Please cite some examples of this behavior as it relates to alcohol. In
other
=> words, when's the last time you saw a story on someone getting shot over a
=> bottle of MD20/20?
=
=That's gotta be a troll, cause no one is that stupid.
Don't duck the question, boy...answer it.
James P. Meyer
On Sun, 24 Aug 1997, Brian C. Burke wrote:
> Who are you to play God and deem what is responsible
> and what is irresponsible?
I guess that task fell on my shoulders because I'm the last
person around here who hasn't burned out my brain on illegal (soon to be
legal) drugs.
Jim
James P. Meyer
On Sun, 24 Aug 1997, Jim Ray wrote:
> You will never prevent stupidity from folks imbibbing too much liquor or
> whatever. It is up to you and I to educate our peers.
Absolutely! As a test of your ability to educate your peers,
pick one chin drooling, inbred, moron out of the multitude who post to
tri.gen and educate him (or her) to the point where they see the error of
their ways and beg our forgiveness. God knows, I've tried.
Jim
MusicMax DJ Services
In article <3400668D...@mindspring.com>,
Ed Beroset <ber...@mindspring.com> wrote:
=I'm sure this will be an easy question for a bright guy like you.
=What's the likelyhood that a person who is highly motivated by money is
=going to take a job as an elementary school teacher in a state which
=ranks 42nd of 50 states in teacher pay?
Where do we rank in cost of living?
bra...@spamnot.best.com
In triangle.general James P. Meyer <jim...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
: On 24 Aug 1997, Ken Kuzenski wrote:
: > : > What do the LoonyTunearians propose to do for all the poor
: > : > schmucks who've burned out their responsible brains on drugs and aren't
: > : > able to take care of themselves?
: >
: > : Register 'em.
: >
: > Get Psycho_Local started back up and give 'em computers.
: Are you kidding? That's what killed Psycho in the first place.
It's me, isn't it.
Steve Crisp
Will Williams wrote:
> Crisp is one of those who apparently didn't inhale. :o)
I'm actually one of those who not only didn't inhale, but who never even
tried drugs. I do not see a need for one to alter reality; indeed, the
only reason I have ever seen anyone offer as a need to do so is because
they can not deal with what reality is and must alter it to even cope.
Hence, they resort to a number of mind-altering substances to transform
their pitiful lives into something that exists within their own pathetic
and confused selves.
No, I'd rather take the road of intelligence, hard work, honor, and
pride in my work to succeed rather than creating some sort of bizarre
fantasy world.
Steve Crisp
Jim Ray
> > I hope you are happy with the war that you support so strongly.
> Through
> > your support, you become a conspirator to murder, in my eyes.
>
> This statement of yours is stronger evidence than any I could
> present for the continuing efforts to eradicate drugs in America.
> It's
> clear to me that folks will do or say anything to justify their
> inability
> to deal with the real world except through a drug induced haze.
Tell it to parents of that teenager that was shot on his own land in
the war against drugs. I doubt Jesus Christ or George Washington would
have approved.
Eradicate violence and you may have something.
Jim Ray
> Life may be terminal, but druggies will check out a lot sooner
> than the rest of us. I wonder what the life expectancy is for
> a hard drug user? I haven't heard of too many strung out 70 yr. old
> Grandma's who shoot up on crack with their Medicare & Social Security
> checks.
You don't shoot crack. You smoke it.
Jim Ray
> If you REALLY want to save people's lives, campaign to outlaw eggs,
> salt and
> Big Macs.
Especially Spam. Lord only knows what is in that stuff.
Will Williams
Steve Crisp wrote:
>Andy Simmons wrote:
>>...Have you *ever* heard of a person getting extremely high and
>> attacking anything other than a bag of Fritos?
>Yes.
Like what?
Crisp is one of those who apparently didn't inhale. :o)
* * * *
What I'm curious about is the Libertarians' position on America's
racial mess. Don't they advocate open borders? That's great; that'll
solve things. Don't they realize those waves of mud people will vote
Democrat?
White Revolution -- The Only Solution!
WWW <www.natvan.com>
Will Williams
Steve Crisp wrote:
>Will Williams wrote:
>> Crisp is one of those who apparently didn't inhale. :o)
>I'm actually one of those who not only didn't inhale, but who never even
>tried drugs. I do not see a need for one to alter reality; indeed, the
>only reason I have ever seen anyone offer as a need to do so is because
>they can not deal with what reality is and must alter it to even cope.
>Hence, they resort to a number of mind-altering substances to transform
>their pitiful lives into something that exists within their own pathetic
>and confused selves.
>No, I'd rather take the road of intelligence, hard work, honor, and
>pride in my work to succeed rather than creating some sort of bizarre
>fantasy world.
>Steve Crisp
That's all well and good, but what does that have to do with becoming
bellicose after a few bong hits? You really shouldn't try to be an
expert on things you've never bothered to experience.
Have you also never taken a drink of liquor?
What in Hell do intelligence, hard work, honor and pride in your work
have to do with the issue raised?
MusicMax DJ Services
In article <3400D5...@mindspring.com>,
"Brian C. Burke" <bcb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
=BTW, all I have been seeing here is people advocating / slamming
=the Libertarians. I'd like to hear some other plans for reducing the
=government spending / waste / power /etc.
Abide by the Constitution. That's all it would take, seriously. Eliminate
most transfer payments (they are not amongst the enumerated powers of Article
I, Section 8), halve the defense budget by eliminating foreign deployment of
our boys and girls (Congress is only authorized to defend The United States),
and eliminate mandates on states and localities (illegal under the Tenth
Amendment).
=Its a lot harder to come up with a good plan
=to fix things.
Not really. It IS hard, however, to level the electoral playing field to
permit honest debate that includes such a plan.
=Don't try to tell me that the Republicans/Democrats
=can do it. They are the ones who put us in this mess in the first
=place.
Since we all agree on this, why not voting for someone who ISN'T a Republican
or a Democrat? To put it in even simpler terms, why not vote FOR someone
instead of AGAINST someone?
MusicMax DJ Services
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.97082...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu>,=On 24 Aug 1997, Rick Pasotto wrote:
=
=> What exactly are those things that only the government can accomplish?
=
= National defense is one that only the national government can
=accomplish. Local governments, state, county, and city, are needed to
=provide for courts of law. And when disputes occur between states,
=national courts of law are necessary. Transportation is greatly
=facilitated when it's coordinated by governments.
This sounds remarkably like a Constitutionally-based, LIBERTARIAN government!
Provided of course that the transportation remark refers to the roads clause in
Article I, Section 8.
But your recognition of government's incompetence, or at the very least
ineffectiveness, in such areas as health care, education, culture and equitable
distribution of wealth is remarkably refreshing!
Shall I send you a "Browne For President" bumper sticker?
Will Williams
"Brian C. Burke" wrote:
>> Somebody wrote:
>> >...No, no, no. Natural selection will allow the most fit to survive.
Does somebody actually think "natural selection" is still at play in
mate selection?
>BTW, all I have been seeing here is people advocating / slamming
>the Libertarians. I'd like to hear some other plans for reducing the
>government spending / waste / power /etc....
See "What is the National Alliance?" at <www.natvan.com>
>...It is easy to bitch about the Libertarians. Its a lot harder to come
>up with a good plan to fix things. Don't try to tell me that the
>Republicans/Democrats can do it. They are the ones who put us
>in this mess in the first place.
Libertarians are generally good-hearted people who just want to be
left alone and hope that everybody else will leave them alone. But
that's flys in the face of human nature. They have no position on
dealing with either the racial mess or the Jewish problem. Maybe
that's why there are so many Jews active as Libertarians -- to keep it
that way?!?
Eleven or so years ago, before I became fully radicalized, I still had
hopes for electorial politics. I was Executive Director of the
Populist Party for NC and busted my butt with the Hurculean task of
getting ballot access here for our party. What an education in
futility it was to have to continually deal with Alex Brock and his
Democrat Board of Elections. My girlfriend was actually fired from her
state job at the Legislature when it was revealed that her boyfriend
had the gall to try and challenge the establishment by forming a third
party.
So, how do the Libertarians differ from the Republicrats when it comes
to resolving America's racial mess or dealing with, say, Jewish
control of our mass media?
If y'all have no position, then you won't mind it when the National
Alliance controls the mass media or when we finally institute a little
"ethnic cleansing," eh?
WWW <www.natvan.com>
Jim Ray
> The study stated that violent crime related to drugs was almost
> exclusively related to the illegal trade, turf wars and gangs that
> came
> about because of the illegality of these drugs.
Amen. Now, we all have to decide whether we want violence or not. Make
it legal, tax it and violence of the aforementioned nature ceases to
exist. Progress hath been made.
Christopher D Dukes
In article <5tq9u6$i...@snews2.zippo.com>,
MusicMax DJ Services <musi...@nospam.bigfoot.com> wrote:
>While there are no studies that link drug use to any of America's leading
>killers (high blood pressure, obesity, hypertension, etc.) there ARE studies
>linking diet to those killers.
>
>If you REALLY want to save people's lives, campaign to outlaw eggs, salt and
>Big Macs.
>
>comment.)
Dammit Dammit Dammit...
I catch your sarcasm, but now some bleeding heart liberal that reads
this newsgroup is going to start bugging congress for such legislation.
Christopher D Dukes
>than the rest of us. I wonder what the life expectancy is for
>a hard drug user? I haven't heard of too many strung out 70 yr. old
>Grandma's who shoot up on crack with their Medicare & Social Security
>checks.
Ahem...
I don't know of anyone that has enough patience to grind up a rock
of crack cocaine and manage to get the dust in a syringe.
Heroin, on the other hand, tends to be administered via needles.
And while grandma might not get heroin while she is on her death bed,
she'll probably have a joy button for morphine. It's still an opiate,
just a matter of how much the liver will accept before it says
"Hasta la Vista."
Now go take your Tylenol.
>
>BTW, all I have been seeing here is people advocating / slamming
>the Libertarians. I'd like to hear some other plans for reducing the
>government spending / waste / power /etc. It is easy to bitch
>about the Libertarians. Its a lot harder to come up with a good plan
>to fix things. Don't try to tell me that the Republicans/Democrats
>can do it. They are the ones who put us in this mess in the first
>place.
Well it was summed up in the thread about UPS and the Teamsters...
It would appear that most folks want to be told what to do.
The republocrats and demopublicans are already experienced at such
tactics... The Libertarians seem to be opposed to such tactics.
It is a great ideal, I just don't have that much faith in the American
public.
James P. Meyer
On 24 Aug 1997, MusicMax DJ Services wrote:
> If you REALLY want to save people's lives, campaign to outlaw eggs, salt and
> Big Macs.
>
> (I hope everyone here except Jimbo can detect the sarcasm in that last
> comment.)
Too late. I've already introduced e coli bugs into the meat
supply. Pretty soon only druggies with the munchies will be willing to
eat at Burger King. I'm killing two birds with one stone.
Jim
Jim Ray
> I'm actually one of those who not only didn't inhale, but who never
> even
> tried drugs. I do not see a need for one to alter reality; indeed, the
>
> only reason I have ever seen anyone offer as a need to do so is
> because
> they can not deal with what reality is and must alter it to even cope.
>
> Hence, they resort to a number of mind-altering substances to
> transform
> their pitiful lives into something that exists within their own
> pathetic
> and confused selves.
Don't knock it if you haven't tried it and really don't know about it.
Jim Ray
> Have you *ever* heard of a person getting extremely high and
> attacking anything other than a bag of Fritos?
I have. In fact, I've heard horror stories about violent attacks on
Cheetos as well. Chocolate rasberry truffle, look out.
Christopher D Dukes
In article <5tqjlk$a...@camel1.mindspring.com>,>>>...Have you *ever* heard of a person getting extremely high and
>>> attacking anything other than a bag of Fritos?
>
>
>Like what?
I suspect that the person withholding the bag of fritos was attacked.
>
>Crisp is one of those who apparently didn't inhale. :o)
If only you would take up the habit of not inhaling.
D W DUKES
Dave what if one the members of the all white community had to visit in
one of the all black communities (or vice versa) and got the crap beat out
of them? What if the law enforcement in that community called it the
worse case of sucide in a long time. There were eyewitnesses that the
person keep running into walls and stabbing themselves with knives until
they were dead?
The problem in these all anything communities is rampant rabid
xenophobia.
How would the Libertarians respond to this when it happened. Note I said
when not if. I am still a pragmatic democratic.
--
Wes Dukes
D W DUKES
Will Williams (whit...@mindspring.com) wrote:
:
: What is an acceptable political group which advocates
: for the interests of non-Jewish European-Americans?
Why, I would accept the democrats, republicans or libertarians to do that.
--
Wes Dukes
Christopher D Dukes
In article <5trr0j$g...@katie.vnet.net>,
Dave Allen Walker <loc...@katie.vnet.net> wrote:
>Christopher D Dukes <cdd...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>>Well it was summed up in the thread about UPS and the Teamsters...
>>It would appear that most folks want to be told what to do.
>>The republocrats and demopublicans are already experienced at such
>>tactics... The Libertarians seem to be opposed to such tactics.
>>
>>It is a great ideal, I just don't have that much faith in the American
>>public.
>
>oppose having an all-powerful welfare state made up of members of this
>society. I only trust the US public to govern themselves, not each other.
The trouble with that is... How exactly do you intend to get
the American public to quit voting for Bread and Circuses?
Does someone have to flat out lie? Tell part of the truth?
Tell the whole truth but tell it in an unconvincing fashion?
Who is going to pay for the Bread or Circuses needed to grab
the collective attention of the American public for 15 seconds?
Jim Ray
> >Ahem...
> >I don't know of anyone that has enough patience to grind up a rock
> >of crack cocaine and manage to get the dust in a syringe.
>
> pretty cool seeing someone trying to inject a rock in their
> arm!!!
Man, I really hate it when that happens.
Jim Ray
> > > If YOU want to do drugs, that's no concern of mine, as long as
> > > your use of drugs is responsible and does not harm another.
> >
> > Name *one* responsible drug user.
> >
> > I'll make it easy on you. Name one *semi*responsible drug
> user.
>
> Just about all of Jamaica. :-)
Amsterdam ain't half bad.
Ed Beroset
Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> I think he's referring to the guy who uses the term "Looneytunearians"
> (or however he spells it), and assumes that every libertarian is a
> pothead.
>
> It would be incredibly easy for the libertarians in this
> argument/flame fest to resport to such tactics, but they aren't. The
> libertarians are posing logical arguments for their positions, while
> some on the other side are doing nothing but name-calling.
>
> I wonder why...
Maybe it's because they take themselves so seriously that no one else
can.
Ed
Mike Phillips
Seth Fehrs wrote:
>
> Mike Phillips wrote:
> >
> > Seth Fehrs wrote:
> >
> > > Are you dense?
> >
> > I was wondering how long it would take for this thread to
> > deteriorate into ad hominem attacks. Too bad, I thought it
> > was taking on an air of intellect.
>
> If you've followed this group for long, I hope you'll agree
> I don't normally use such tactics. If you've really followed
> this thread, do you not think Jim's tactics are worthy of
> derision?
Well, all I have is my opinion, and it is no, his tactics don't
deserve derision. (I don't even remember who Jim is.) If someone
trolls or goes off the deep end, just ignore them. They'll
eventually go away.
But, at least for now, we have the freedom to say almost whatever
we choose.
Bring Me The Head of Daniel Frost
Will Williams (whit...@mindspring.com) wailed:
: >Libertarians believe that all people are equal, and should be judged on
: >merit, not color of skin...
:
: I see. So Libertarians are egalitarian, just like the Republicats. I'm
: disappointed.
Why is it such a disappointment that there are some people who are not
given to xenophobia and hatred?
: >...We don't believe that the government should be
: >used to force racial equality any more than sexual equality or anything
: >else like that. The government itself should not be allowed to
: >discriminate, but if you and your racist buddies want to start an
: >all-white business, and live in an all-white housing community that is set
: >up voluntarily, that's your business...
:
: And what if we want to set up a Whites only living space? Will you
: guys fight us on that? And if you oppose White living space, how do
: you propose to fight us? With a Libertarian armed force?
I don't see any of that in Dave's comment. Let me quote it back to you:
:if you and your racist buddies want to start an
: >all-white business, and live in an all-white housing community that is
: >setup voluntarily, that's your business...
: >...Nobody should be able to force you
: >to do otherwise, and nobody should be forced to do business with you.
:
: >Likewise, if the African-American community wants to start businesses
: >which hire only blacks, or live in all black housing communities, that's
: >fine as well, as long as it is voluntary and not forced...
:
: So, all-Black communities of "racist idiots" are OK. What's your beef
: then with all-White communities? Your hypocrisy is showing.
He is saying the same thing as above.
*yawn*
--Camille.
--
"Why do you get to defenestrate the Axman?" "Because I'm the GODMOM,
that's why!"
"You know what? There's a reason why those Clanners defected to the Inner
Sphere. It's because we've got three very important things they don't
have: cold beer, porno mags, and tottie bars." -- Winter Guite'
Jon
Will Williams wrote:
>
> Steve Crisp wrote:
> >Andy Simmons wrote:
>
> >>...Have you *ever* heard of a person getting extremely high and
> >> attacking anything other than a bag of Fritos?
>
> >Yes.
>
> Like what?
>
>
> What I'm curious about is the Libertarians' position on America's
> racial mess. Don't they advocate open borders? That's great; that'll
> solve things. Don't they realize those waves of mud people will vote
> Democrat?
>
> White Revolution -- The Only Solution!
>
> WWW <www.natvan.com>
I can't speak for the Libs, but the Reform Party definitely does
not support open borders. We should lock them up tight and have
controlled immigration (if any). Illegal immigrants should be
deported when found and not able to receive any welfare. The laws
should be changed to not allowing children born here by illegal
immigrants automatically becoming citizens. You should have to
have at least one US citizen as a parent to get automatic
citizenship.
As for the white-only part, the blacks make up only 14% of
the population and have a small amount of political
influence (compared to white America). If you want to point
a finger at the group that created the problems we face,
it's got to be at us, the whites.
Matter of fact, the blacks have been fighting a losing war
against "the man" for years. I think it's just taken us
longer to wake up and realize that "the man" was screwing
us as well as the blacks. We probably have more common
ground and could get much more done together than anyone
is willing to admit.
Jon Carroll
Apex
Dave Allen Walker
Jim Ray <j...@WhirledPeas.com> wrote:
>I haven't quite figured out a way to handle the addiction treatment.
>Being a proponent of exerting peer pressure to prevent addiction, I
>haven't really absorbed the concept of socialized medicine.
The best thing about addiction treatment in the libertarian society is
that it would be able to have enough options available to be successful.
The way things go today, only "approved" options for treatment are
available. Any treatment which may require other drugs could be delayed
for years due to FDA approval methods. The option of offering moderate
dosage of the drugs as happens in Britain (the government does it there,
though, unnecessarily) is not readily available through conventional
means. In addition, street drugs are of unknown potency, whereas a legal
trade in any drug is enhanced by detailed labelling of contents.
Medical licensure has closed off many successful areas of health care,
with the latest effort being aimed at herbs and dietary supplements. The
result is fewer doctors and higher costs for health care. In addition,
increased socialization of our health care has increased demand which
increased cost. As the costs of socialization go up, taxes increase,
which results in less takehome pay, which DIRECTLY affects contributions
to charity. Charity is now, and hopefully will continue to be, a great
resource for education about the dangers of drugs directed at children, as
well as treatment programs to help addicts rid themselves of their
problem.
The drug war is the Vietnam war of the '80s and '90s. Both are wars
fought by honorable soldiers. Both are unwinnable. Both required
underhanded tactics and "fact campaigns" to get started and gain support
with the citizens. Both opposed by groups typically seen to be a
counterculture or friend of the enemy. Both involved a visible minority of
soldiers who were corrupt or evil, and who used the war as an excuse to
profit from the misery of others. Both resulted in the deaths of many
innocent civilians. Both wars are/were wrong. It's time to admit that
we've won this war and go home.
Dave Allen Walker
Seth Fehrs <fehr...@mc.duke.edu> wrote:
>It is going to take a while, but we are currently doing it a
>few Americans at a time. I believe our growth rate in NC was
>about 30% this year. If only we could keep that up.
It was estimated to be around 30% in the first 6 months of the year, but
apparently more information came in after I got that information (few
weeks ago) as more counties sent us their registration data.
It may be as high as 50%, from what I heard this weekend. I'd hesitate to
make that official, but I believe it is more accurate.
I believe, however, that the impressive growth rate is primarily
attributable to the Libertarian Party's sudden acceptability in political
circles. More libertarian minded folks are becoming Libertarian Party
members, and leaving the Democratic or Republican parties behind. I
believe we are benefiting greatly from the general shift in the popular
view slightly toward the libertarian quadrant. (see nolan chart at
http://www.self-gov.org if you don't understand the reference to quadrant
here.)
People are finally realizing that government doesn't work. For some it
means reform. For some it means more government to force the rest of it
to work, somehow. For some it means, at minimum, not tacking it on so
fast.
Some think it means saying they'll cut slabs of government off, but
badger themselves into adding on more anyway. I call them the Republican
Congress. If Republicans in Congress voted the way Republicans in America
wanted them to, we'd be seeing less government right now.
Kinda funny I feel that way. I used to be a liberal Democrat.
MusicMax DJ Services
In article <5tv5pk$ag0$1...@news.duke.edu>,
stk...@acpub.duke.edu (Steve King) wrote:
=You're darn tootin', Steve!! The FDA is yet another example of how
=The Man has us down.
Delays in the approval of drugs and medical procedures directly cause
80,000-90,000 deaths per year. Your support of the FDA has put blood on your
hands. Happy?
The FDA approval process for a single drug now takes about eleven years and
costs over $400,000,000.00. When you consider that a patent only lasts
seventeen years, you understand (well maybe YOU don't...) how the FDA has
driven up the costs of medication to ridiculous levels.
=What? You aren't overjoyed at the thought that pharmaceutical
=companies will devote billions to developing and marketing
="recreational" drugs to your children? You think tobacco or
=alcohol is a problem....<chuckle>
Provided that there's a creature out there that was stupid enough to mate with
you, your own child could get any drug it wanted within hours.
=But that's life in the uptopian Looneytarian paradise.
Another immature Dookie prick, I see.
Ed Beroset
Dave Allen Walker wrote:
>
> Steve DeGroof <deg...@REMOVE.THIS.mindspring.com> wrote:
> >In a Libertarian society, what would prevent a drug manufacturer from
> >incorrectly labeling its product?
> Outside of the probability of multimillion dollar lawsuits, or even class
> action suits which could cause loss of insurance, or forced closure of the
> business, nothing.
>
[...]
> >If I understand the nature of Libertarianism correctly, neither of these
> >practices would be regulated by any form of government. Is this correct?
> Aspirin kills as many people in one year as Heroin. Because it was on the
> market before the FDA came into being, it is not subject to FDA
> regulation. That would change in a libertarian society. Aspirin would
> have to be properly labelled with possible side effects, or the companies
> would get sued, and end up out of business.
Looks like Libertarian Thinkers a few more details to work out. If
incorrectly labelling a drug is no longer against the law, what is the
basis for a lawsuit?
Ed
MusicMax DJ Services
In article <3402bfc3...@news.mindspring.com>,
deg...@REMOVE.THIS.mindspring.com (Steve DeGroof) wrote:
=In a Libertarian society, what would prevent a drug manufacturer from
=incorrectly labeling its product?
Fraud laws.
=If I understand the nature of Libertarianism correctly, neither of these
=practices would be regulated by any form of government. Is this correct?
Ever hear of Underwriters Laboratories?
MusicMax DJ Services
In article <5u0504$krs$1...@ralph.vnet.net>, jas...@vnet.net (jasher) wrote:
=MusicMax DJ Services (musi...@nospam.bigfoot.com) wrote:
=: In article <3402CF...@pageplanet.com>,
=: Steve Crisp <cr...@pageplanet.com> wrote:
=: =Dave Allen Walker wrote:
=: =
=: => The drug war is the Vietnam war of the '80s and '90s. Both are wars
=: => fought by honorable soldiers. Both are unwinnable.
=: =
=: =Not true. Both were (and are) winnable
=:
=: Bullshit. See Prohibition.
=:
=: =if those involved in the "war"
=: =had (or will) be allowed to use the proper tactics and equipment in
=: =fighting those wars.
=:
=: Bullshit. See Prohibition.
=
=ALL that Prohibition succeeded in doing in any practical sense was growing
=and strengthening the black market in liquor (and other contraband),
=giving the public speakeasys, and most importantly, FIRMLY ESTABLISHING
=ORGANIZED CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY. Yeah, you heard me right. How do you
=think the Mafia got its start? It had tried and tried for years to get in
=the door in America, and couldn't for lack of public support. Prohibition
=gave them all the support they needed, and they're here to stay. You can
=thank Prohibition for that. Firmly documented fact, in every adult level
=history book you care to mention.
=
=Study your history books again before using Prohibition as an example of
=winning ANY war. Sorry, but entirely true.
Ummm...if you had read my post properly you would have noticed that I was using
Prohibition as an example of an UNWINNABLE war, just as today's War on (Some)
Drugs is unwinnable.
The other poster is the fool who suggested that the drug war was winnable if we
gave every cop a carload of Uzis and a get out of jail free card.
Andy Simmons
In article <340422...@pageplanet.com>,
Steve Crisp <cr...@pageplanet.com> wrote:
>Dave Allen Walker wrote:
>
>> I think you seriously need to rethink how little you are concerned for the
>> value of human life.
>
>People who sell drugs and use drugs are not human. Why should I value
>them?
Define "drug" for me, Steve. Again, you're skating around the heart of
the issue. You can't enforce a "drug" law unless you can tell me what
constitutes a "drug" and then *PROVE* that each substance you're against
fits into that category.
Alcohol, for instance, is *proven* far more addictive than marijuana.
Therefore, if marijuana is a drug, so is alcohol.
Your logic states that "people who sell drugs and use drugs are not
human", therefore we should shoot them. Following this logic, every
person who has imbibed *or* sold alcohol should die. Are you telling me
that virtually *every* person who has waited tables in a restaurant,
worked the checkout in a grocery store, or attended Catholic mass should
die right now?
--Didymos!
--
e v e r y t i m e i p i n d o w n w h a t i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Andy Simmons. Pseudo-artiste. Highly combustible. Not for internal use.
Tired of boring, bulky content? Try: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dasimmon
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: t h i n k i w a n t i t s l i p s a w a y
Steve King
Andy Simmons (dasi...@n00047-118dan.unity.ncsu.edu) wrote:
: Steve King <stk...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
: >And were that the case, so what? How many children have tried
: >cigarettes, or stolen a beer? But in the Looneytarian Dopetopia,
: >get ready for Madison Avenue to market the equivalent of
: >crack cocaine....
: ...or not.
: Companies, especially those providing consumables, realize that the
: majority of their business comes from repeat customers. Killing off your
: customers is a quick way to ensure that they (and their families and
: friends) don't come back. Why do you think McDonalds sells Happy Meals?
: It's not because they're cost-effective. They use them to make future
: customers out of those kids. Companies are bright enough to know that
: pushing lethal substances is like slitting their own wrists.
I remain entirely unconvinced.
Tobacco is a relatively lethal substance (anyone know the LD-50 for
nicotene?). Yet the human body is resilient enough to survive years
upon years of smoking. Providing there's an annual fresh supply of new
"customers" I don't think Phillip Morris, Inc.'s particularly worried about
economic suicide. (As an aside, probably the only thing they
really fear is the FDA -- interesting, eh?).
Second, even if the "Dopetopia" Looneytarians crave, doesn't
immediately dissolve into anarchy, and become replaced with a new
or reformed socio-political order, why on earth do you think long-term
customer satisfaction will be any more desirable than it is now?
Are you a fisherman? Even if not, have you seen ads for the "Banjo Minnow?"
It's a moderately worthless piece of rubber shit, hyped and telemarketed
as a bass "super-lure." Do you think the inventors are particularly worried
that customers, a year from now, will be unhappy?
Would you look forward to the marketers of the Banjo Minnow to
peddle, not a lure, but highly addictive drugs on television?
Perhaps hit the Sat morning violence/cartoon/sex shows your
future children will be exposed to?
Take the money and run.
James P. Meyer
On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Seth Fehrs wrote:
> Common law makes virtually all forms of violence and theft
> illegal without any legislated laws at all.
Common law also provides for punishment without any legislated
laws at all.
Jim "An eye for an eye." Meyer
Andy Simmons
In article <5u1oec$oi4$1...@news.duke.edu>,
Steve King <stk...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>
>I remain entirely unconvinced.
>
>Tobacco is a relatively lethal substance (anyone know the LD-50 for
>nicotene?). Yet the human body is resilient enough to survive years
>upon years of smoking. Providing there's an annual fresh supply of new
>"customers" I don't think Phillip Morris, Inc.'s particularly worried about
>economic suicide. (As an aside, probably the only thing they
>really fear is the FDA -- interesting, eh?).
Ah, but you're forgetting. People aren't dying from the nicotine,
they're dying from lung cancer or emphysema. The nicotine merely serves
as an addictive agent. But since you asked... the LD50 for nicotine (in
mice, of course. Nobody tests this stuff on people) is 230 mg/kg taken
orally. The typical dosage that a human takes is only .7mg. You'd have
to smoke a LOT of cigarettes before you'd die from nicotine alone.
>Are you a fisherman? Even if not, have you seen ads for the "Banjo Minnow?"
>It's a moderately worthless piece of rubber shit, hyped and telemarketed
>as a bass "super-lure." Do you think the inventors are particularly worried
>that customers, a year from now, will be unhappy?
No. But then, they're just peddling to the gullible. They want to get
what they can and run with it. Then again, the Banjo Minnow is NOT a
consumable. Whether it works or not, they'll buy ONE and then never have
to buy another. Consumables (such as drugs and food) are items that
people buy over and over, and if they find a brand they like, they'll
stick with it.
Major companies can't get away with the "take the money and run"
approach, because they have name recognition. Phillip Morris is a big
company, and if their products start killing people, it'll hit the news.
Every future product they attempt to sell will carry with it that
association with the previous bad product. Remember the Ford Pinto? New
Coke? The McDLT? While these aren't deadly products, the very fact that
they existed is an embarassment to their respective owners. Now, if they
killed people...
>Would you look forward to the marketers of the Banjo Minnow to
>peddle, not a lure, but highly addictive drugs on television?
>Perhaps hit the Sat morning violence/cartoon/sex shows your
>future children will be exposed to?
Television stations have all of the power in the world when it comes to
deciding what they do and don't want to advertise. If NBC started
peddling dangerous products to little kids, you can bet that other
companies would pull out as soon as possible. Guilt by association is
something that no company wants. Remember all the companies that dropped
OJ Simpson as their spokeman?
--Didymos!
--
=========D. Andrew "Didymos" Simmons========dasi...@unity.ncsu.edu==========
"This is my favorite quote of the day. I'm having it bronzed and riveted to
my forehead." --Gurk, Prophet of Smerp
=================G==O==O==D==B==O==Y==G==O==N==E==B==A==D====================
Ed Beroset
Andy Simmons wrote:
>
> >cigarettes, or stolen a beer? But in the Looneytarian Dopetopia,
> >get ready for Madison Avenue to market the equivalent of
> >crack cocaine....
>
> ...or not.
>
> Companies, especially those providing consumables, realize that the
> majority of their business comes from repeat customers. Killing off your
> customers is a quick way to ensure that they (and their families and
> friends) don't come back.
However, if you kill 'em off slowly, like the tobacco companies, you
build highly profitable multibillion dollar conglomerates. Probably
would have been a lot more but the Libertarians haven't had the chance
to kill off the FDA yet.
Ed
Ed Beroset
Steve Crisp wrote:
> > Define "drug" for me, Steve. Again, you're skating around the heart of
> > the issue. You can't enforce a "drug" law unless you can tell me what
> > constitutes a "drug" and then *PROVE* that each substance you're against
> > fits into that category.
>
> Any substance that alters the perception of reality as its primary
> affect and for recreational purposes only I would consider an illegal
> drug.
Yet another detail to be worked out by the Libertarian Thinkers, I see.
A good novel fits your description of what you say should be an illegal
drug. Welcome to Dopetopia.
Ed
Jim Ray
Steve Crisp wrote:
> People who sell drugs and use drugs are not human. Why should I value
> them?
Dude, get a grip. I use drugs daily and proudly profess to be quite
human. The drugs I use are caffeine, alcohol and nicotine in that
occasional cigar. Your logic fails miserably in this instance.
Jim Ray
Steve Crisp wrote:
> Seth Fehrs wrote:
>
> > And I'm sure you love beer for the taste, always stick
> > to one beer, and never feel the effect.
>
> I don't drink.
>
> Steve Crisp
Maybe you should. It just might keep the logic from drying up.
--
Jim Ray
> Crisp doesn't come across as a libertarian (more a kosher
> conservative, I'd say), but with his drug definition you solicited you
>
> may have him pegged as a book burner -- starting with Politically
> Incorrect, "mind-altering" ones like the Turner Diaries.
It wouldn't surprise me if rock 'n roll albums went up in smoke, too.
Steve Crisp
Steve DeGroof
Sam Robinson <Sams...@mindspring.com> wrote:
:
:The normal (as of a few years back) position was that a legitimate
:function of the government was to protect the citizens from measurable
:damage resulting from force or fraud. Mislabeling a product is certainly
:fraudulent, so that one's covered. As to the other, I suppose
:narco-flakes are a possibility. But, assuming that you bother to read
:the label, would you really want an addictive cereal? If you don't
:bother to read the label (or have someone read it to you) should I
:worry? I guess I should, but where do we stop on that side of the hill?
:
OK, everyone seems to be getting caught up in the specifics of the
question. I was using the breakfast cereal scenario as an example to try
to figure out the internal workings of Libertarianism.
I suppose what I should have said was:
1. Please describe the matrix of checks and balances which would exist
in a Libertarian political structure.
2. Does it differ from the system currently in place in America?
3. If so, do those differences make it more or less difficult for large
corporations or wealthy individuals to abuse it? Does it plug holes or
open new ones?
SD
/===================================================================\
| Steve DeGroof (deg...@mindspring.com) |
| http://www.mindspring.com/~degroof/ |
|===================================================================|
| simile : metaphor :: analogy : __________ |
\===================================================================/
Jim Ray
> When the government commissions studies from reputable researchers
> (RTI
> being a great example), they often discover that they haven't a leg to
>
> stand on.
The Libertarian Party denounces the use of tax dollars to support a
bunch of pot heads in the name of government research. Yet, that's what
is happening.
I had much rather pay more money to the kind police officers that risk
their lives in the line of duty than support a bunch of dope heads.
James P. Meyer
On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Steve Crisp wrote:
> Any substance that alters the perception of reality as its primary
> affect and for recreational purposes only I would consider an illegal
> drug.
I would only add "addictive" to that definition.
Jim
Jim Ray
Dave Allen Walker wrote:
> Jim Ray <j...@WhirledPeas.com> wrote:
> >All guns deserve flowers in their barrels. Forgive him. He does not
>
> >know how truly stupid it is to use violence.
>
> I can understand how he feels. I used to be a gung-ho supporter of
> the
> drug war. I knew for a fact that using drugs was likely to kill you.
> I
> knew for a fact that drug dealers were scum, and that anyone who took
> drugs was scum as well.
> <snip>
> After making this decision for myself, it still took a couple years
> for me
> to become a libertarian. It took still longer for me to join the
> party.
> I'm glad I did, because the Republican and Democratic Parties are, in
> my
> opinion, co-conspirators in one of the greatest hoaxes ever played on
> the
> American people, the drug war.
...and possibly the most expensive war. Uncle Sam, please give me my
tax dollars back. I want to spend them educating people not to harm
themselves with drugs.
Jim Ray
> Companies are bright enough to know that
> pushing lethal substances is like slitting their own wrists.
I don't need a government that uses my tax dollars in the war on drugs
when I have enough sense to decide for myself to use drugs or not to use
drugs. I hope most folks have the same mental capacities as my small
cranial cavity.
Andy Simmons
In article <340491...@pageplanet.com>,
Steve Crisp <cr...@pageplanet.com> wrote:
>
>Any substance that alters the perception of reality as its primary
>affect and for recreational purposes only I would consider an illegal
>for medicinal purposes, nor would it place them in that catagory if
>perception alterating was merely a side affect of a legitimate medicinal
>application. For instance, Benedryl causes alteration in perception and
>decreased coordination, but that is a side effect of its intended
>purpose of reducing allergic symptoms. On the other hand, and knowing
>those effects, it should be (and is) illegal to operate a motor vehicle
>if one experiences severe effects from Benedryl - even if taking that
>medication is by perscription.
So, under this set of guidelines, cocaine is still okay, since it's
commonly used as a topical anesthetic. What about marijuana? While we
*don't* currently use it for medicinal purposes, it has been shown to be
highly effective in treating AIDS wasting syndrome, glaucoma, spasticity,
and acute migraines. Do you support the relaxation of restrictions on
marijuana if it's for medical use only?
>With alcohol one is presented with an interesting situation. Alcohol for
>thousands of years has been a dietary staple, substituting for grains.
>Alcohol also is linear in its effect on the user in that relatively
>small amounts of alcohol do not alter perceptions. A single beer drunk
>responsibly over dinner or a glass of wine with same will not produce
>the affects intended when someone drinks for the purpose of getting
>drunk. Small consumption does not adversely affect coordination, nor
>does it alter moods.
Depends. Some people can consume large amounts of alcohol with little or
no adverse effects, while others might get a bit tipsy after a single
beer. Many drugs are like this. Caffeine, nicotine, and even marijuana
will affect some people in small doses, but require larger doses to
affect others.
>The recognition of that is why we have two sets of laws regarding
>alcohol. One set of laws (or the implied lack thereof) allows
>responsible possession and consumption of alcohol provided that the
>level of alcohol does not reach a particular concentration. Above that
>level, the individual is considered impaired and the operation of
>vehicles or machinery is illegal. We also used to have laws against
>public intoxication, but those have been eliminated by liberals over the
>years.
I don't see why similar laws can't be applied to other drugs. Is there
any reason why Joe Blow can't smoke pot in his own home, provided that he
doesn't go out driving or wandering his neighborhood afterward? For what
reason do we prevent him from drinking some psilocybe mushroom tea and
watching "Yellow Submarine" in his own home?
I fully agree that operating machinery (such as a motor vehicle) under
*any* condition other than totally sober should be grounds for immediate
revocation of one's driver's license. And I agree that one really
shouldn't be out in public when their judgement is that badly impaired.
I fail to understand why it would be so difficult to control the current
illicit drugs under the same regulations as alcohol.
--Didymos!
--
___________________________________D. Andrew Simmons_____
Proverbial Smerpology: Looser and Less Likely to Eructate
"GET BACK IN MY PANTS AND STOP POSTING TO USENET!" -Jaffo
--d a s i m m o n @ u n i t y . n c s u . e d u----------
MusicMax DJ Services
In article <3404D9...@pageplanet.com>,
Steve Crisp <cr...@pageplanet.com> wrote:
=Seth Fehrs wrote:
=
=> And I'm sure you love beer for the taste, always stick
=> to one beer, and never feel the effect.
=
=I don't drink.
And I don't ride motorcycles. But that doesn't mean I want to deprive everyone
else of the right to do something that I find loud and impractical at best,
dangerous at worst.
No matter how perfect you are, Stevie-Weevie, no matter how polished you keep
your jackboots, not everyone is going to behave exactly like you. And most of
us are grateful for that.